You mean history of the Federal government writing laws meant to coax the states into compliance? The examples are legion. Interstate road funds have been used to generations to coerce state compliance any various federal regulations.
Ask yourself this: If the bill was written with the intent you claim, what reason would any state have for setting up their own exchange?
Not ANY law - this law. And the reason states might create their own is self proving with the disaster of the Federal portal - the states that created their own (some of them) had better luck, and the funds to do so were provided by the Feds.
Also, why does the bill repeat the same distinction between 1311 and 1321 exchanges and then leave out 1321 at least twice? Why wouldn't they simply encapsulate federal and state exchanges into 1311 if they wanted them to be essentially the same? THis isn't a matter of people being sloppy, this is a matter of a bill that is crafted to say exactly the opposite of what you claim it says.
What you're ultimately suggesting is the drafters of the ACA INTENDED to deny subsidies to residents of states who didn't create their own exchanges. That is the core question - what was their INTENT. First of all, you can't show anything that indicates this was the intent of the drafters. Furthermore, if that was in fact their intent, the drafters certainly wouldn't have left that intent vague, and accomplished that intent obliquely. It's a HUGE deal that dismantles ACA in recalcitrant states. If Congress intended that result, allow states to dismantle the ACA by just sitting on their hands, they'd have so stated, and in a manner that left NO interpretation.
I said federal agencies, not courts. The IRS can't change a law because they think it should have said something else. That is what they did with the PPACA.
The IRS was empowered by the law to issue regulations to implement the law.
Assuming it is a drafting error. But then the rationale that it was a drafting error is "Because!"
No, that's just not right. The rationale that it was a drafting error is because
if Congress intended that result, the rest of the ACA makes no sense. What you're saying is the drafters of the ACA intended to provide the weapons for opponents of ACA to dismantle ACA.
It's an insane interpretation. The drafters anticipated states would be hesitant to accept Medicaid expansion. So, they tied ALL Medicaid money to agreeing to expand Medicaid.
Congress cannot force (send troops?) states to create an exchange and the drafters anticipated some states might elect to just do nothing. So they said, "If YOU don't set up the exchange, WE will do it on your behalf. You WILL have an exchange one way or the other."
But even drafting errors are not all excused by the court.
They're excused when the intent is clear, and interpreting a drafting error in some manner is inconsistent with the rest of the statute and that intent.
No, this is absurdly false. Would you argue that the law allows subsidies for individuals who signed up for insurance directly with an insurance company? The laws says nothing about them getting subsidies. So the Dems clearly didn't intend for everyone to have subsidies available. The Dems intended for a targeted group of individuals to get subsidies... and by the law that groups is comprised of individuals apply through state-built exchanges.
Now you're behaving like the court. Obviously I meant that the drafters of ACA intended for those signing up on state AND Federal exchanges to be eligible for subsidies. Heck, no one disputes this. There is nothing anywhere to suggest any provision or amendment was intended to limit subsidies to ONLY those on state run exchanges.
False false and false. Medicaid is a voluntary program and it was not an all or nothing proposition before PPACA tried to make it so.
Your example is not an apples to apples comparison because the PPACA is demanding a state accept more money to expand a program or take nothing. This simply wasn't the way it worked before PPACA.
Right, it's voluntary. You can elect not to participate and you get no money. If you DO participate, you have to comply with the rules established by Congress. States can't demand the money and say to the Feds - "We demand
one TRILLION dollars, and we'll do what we want, and F you if you don't like our plan." NO, they get the money in accordance with and in the amount consistent with rules established by Congress. If they don't want to play by those rules, they get no money.
